Hicks v. Maple Valley Corp.

• Decision Date: 07 September 1967
• Docket Number: No. 24195,24195
• Citation: 223 Ga. 577,156 S.E.2d 904
• Parties: Charles Elden HICKS v. MAPLE VALLEY CORPORATION.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 904

156 S.E.2d 904

223 Ga. 577

Charles Elden HICKS v.MAPLE VALLEY CORPORATION.

No. 24195.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Sept. 7, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 21, 1967.

Charles Elden Hicks, pro se.

Brackett, Lyle & Arnall, Claud F. Brackett, William F. Brackett, Atlanta, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

FRANKUM, Justice.

Rule 16 of the court provides that the brief of the apellant shall be divided into two parts; that 'Part One shall contain a concise statement of the case, including a statement of the reasons why the Supreme Court and not the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction, with citation of the part or parts of the record, and if possible the particular paragraphs thereof, showing such jurisdiction,' and that 'Part One shall also contain succinct and accurate statements of the issues of law as made by the errors specified and reference to the parts of the record and transcript of the evidence necessary for consideration thereof.'With respect to Part 2 of appellant's brief this rule provides that it shall contain the argument and citations of authorities and shall likewise contain a conclusion specifying with particularity the relief to which the party deems himself entitled.SeeRules of the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia (AdoptedJuly 8, 1965) 220 Ga. 909, 912.As was pointed out by this court in the early case of Chapman v Gray, 8 Ga. 337, 339, 'The rules of this court are the laws of the court, and must be obeyed, until repealed, unless it can be shown that they are repugnant to the paramount law.'The rules of this court first above referred to and adopted since the passage of the 1965 Appellate Practice Act were formulated with a view to the changed mode of showing error and clearly require the appellant to show to this court by appropriate references contained in his brief the place or places in the record transmitted to this court wherein he contends the trial court committed error.

The appellant here who represents himself before this court, and who also represented himself before the trial court has not, in his brief, either in the original brief or in a supplementary brief which he has filed, made reference to any place in the record to which this court may refer to ascertain whether the trial court committed error.Furthermore appellant's brief contains no concise statement of the case, and while it does contain immediately below the heading thereof a designation of '(part 1)', nowhere has appellant...